Begin looking at relationships between variables
Theoretical Arguments and Hypotheses
Elements of a good theory
Writing good hypotheses
Testing Hypotheses
(material here comes mostly from Chapter 3 of your textbook)
(in very broad terms)
Describing: making generalization about the world
Predicting: generating expectations about what will happen in the future
Explaining: explaining why things are related.
Explanation is often the toughest to achieve, but also the most desirable because it allows us to do things like make changes to reach a desired outcome.
“Why questions”
“a logically interconnected set of propositions from which empirical uniformities can be derived” – Robert K Merton
Theories are explanations, assumptions, claims and narratives that provide a set of expectations that link a cause to an effect.
Purely descriptive or predictive analyses don’t necessarily require a theory, but its a key component of explanatory research.
Theories vary in their scope:
What explains differences in the “path to modernity” across different countries during the 20th century?
Free markets/Democracy in the U.S. and England
Fascism in Germany and Japan
Communism in Russia and China
Barrington Moore: Classes have unique and conflicting interests. Conflicts over these interests come to the forefront during industrialization. The outcomes of these class conflicts shape the political and economic system.
Fascist states emerge when the landed aristocracy wins
Communist states emerge when the peasant class wins
Democracies emerge when the bourgeois (middle class) wins.
Moore’s theory borrows assumptions from a (sociological) Marxist grand theory about class conflict
It can be used and refined to generate a set of empirical expectations about what factors should matter for democratization. For instance, we might expect:
States with larger agricultural sectors during industrialization to be less democratic today (compared to states with smaller agricultural sectors)
States with higher literacy rates during industrialization to be more democratic (compared to states with lower literacy rates)
Good theories clearly identify:
A dependent variable(s): the outcome to be explained
One or more independent variables: the causal factors that determine the DV.
A causal mechanism that links these two things.
An expectation about the direction of the effect (positive, negative, something more complex)
Good theories should generate expectations that can be empirically tested (even if the theory itself can’t be tested)
Asking the same people the same questions a few months apart yields surprisingly unpredictable results.
Small changes in question wording, ordering of choices, or survey context cause big changes in outcomes
Data from the 1980 ANES panel survey (reproduced from Zaller 1992)
Recieve-Accept-Sample model (Zaller)
Receive: People hear persuasive messages
Accept: They accept some of these and reject others depending on their predispositions.
Sampe: When the answer a survey, the “sample” the most salient of these.
outcome: attitude stability, attitudes
causes: the volume and clarity of messages (especially from elites)
(some) Expectations:
More engaged people are more persuadable when partisan cues are low
People with low engagement/knowledge will develop more consistent answers issues are highly salient
Why do people vote?
Since politicians generally offer public goods, you can enjoy the benefits of your preferred candidate winning even if you don’t vote
Since voting has costs (even though they’re small) free riding can be preferable to actually turning out if the costs outweigh the benefits.
Pivotal voting
Claim: people vote because they expect to sway the election
If this is true, then:
Turnout should be higher in close elections
Turnout should be higher when the electorate is small
Expressive voting model
Claim: people vote to enjoy the expressive benefits
If this is true then:
People with more extreme beliefs will be more likely to vote
Closeness or the size of the electorate shouldn’t matter much
Its unlikely that either theory is entirely true, but both can be used to generate expectations and productive debate over the relative weight of the evidence favoring one explanation vs. another.
Theories give causal explanations for why something effects something else
Hypotheses are specific testable implications generated by that theory.
Theory: people vote because of expressive benefits
Hypothesis: people with more extreme views will be more likely to turn out.
Components:
Unit of analysis
Dependent variable
Independent variable
Direction of the predicted relationship
Good hypotheses inevitably involve comparative language (higher/lower/more/less/increase/decrease/better/worse)
In a comparison of [unit of analysis], those having [one value on the independent variable] will be [more/less] likely to have [one value on the dependent variable] than those having a [different value on the independent variable].
In a comparison of [voters], those having [stronger political views] will be more likely to have [a higher likelihood of turnout] than those having a [weaker views].
Unit of analysis: voters
IV: strength of political views
DV: turnout
Relationship: strength increases turnout
In a comparison of [states], those having [a larger middle class during industrialization] will be more likely to have [democracy] than those having a [a smaller middle class].
Unit of analysis: states
IV: size of the middle class
DV: democracy
Relationship: middle class increases likelihood of democracy
In a comparison of [survey respondents], those having [higher levels of attention to politics] will be more likely to have [consistent responses] than those having a [lower levels of attention to politics].
Unit of analysis: Survey respondents
IV: level of attention
DV: response consistency
Relationship: attention increases consistency
Good hypotheses may suggest a more complex set of relationships than just “positive/negative”. They could propose conditional/interactive/curvilinear relationships as well.
The “oil curse”
In a comparison of [countries], those having [higher levels of GDP] will be [more likely to be democratic] compared to [countries with lower GDP], [however, this relationship will not hold for countries that get rich from oil exports.]
Retrospective voting:
In a comparison of [voters], those having [lower levels of attention to politics] will be [more likely to vote for the incumbent when the economy is doing well]. Those having [higher levels of attention to politics] will be [more likely to vote based on policy preferences regardless of the state of the economy]
The main determinant of war is the distribution of power in the international system.
In comparing individuals, annual income and the level of education are related.
Democracies are peaceful. In comparing individuals, some people are more likely to favor the death penalty than others.
Testing hypotheses by making comparisons
Graphing and describing relationships